In Grants Pass, a simmering dispute between resident Michael Servant and city officials has brought into sharp focus one of the most difficult challenges facing local governments across the country: how to manage homeless encampments in a way that protects both vulnerable populations and surrounding neighborhoods. At the center of the conflict is the sanctioned homeless camp located along 5th and 6th streets. Servant argues that the city itself is violating its own nuisance property laws, while the city maintains that public property is subject to a different legal standard.
The disagreement, now stretching over months, has been documented in lengthy email exchanges among Servant, the Grants Pass Police Department, and City Attorney Stephanie Nuttall. The correspondence reveals both the frustration of nearby property owners and the city’s cautious legal stance in a policy landscape shaped by state law, federal court rulings, and limited municipal resources.
For Servant and his neighbors, daily life alongside the camp has meant constant disruption. Reports of trespassing, theft, public disorder, intimidation, and vandalism have become routine. He notes that he has often called the police to report incidents, only to be told that without multiple simultaneous complaints, a citation for disorderly conduct cannot be issued. The reality, he says, is that this is the typical result of the dozens upon dozens of calls neighbors have made. Nearly all of the offenses are transitory—violent outbursts, unleashed dogs, shouting profanity, and disturbances that vanish before officers arrive 10 to 15 minutes later. The calls themselves can involve 5 to 10 minutes of navigating questions from dispatch, and contrary to Chief Warren Hensman’s assurances, Servant says reporting has only become more cumbersome, now requiring callers to provide their date of birth. “What does that have to do with anything?” he asked.
One key point of contention is the city’s use of surveillance cameras trained on the site. Police officials have stated that the cameras are not monitored in real time, but rather used to gather evidence after a crime has already occurred. To Servant, this approach misses the point. He points out that when the department did dedicate staff to actively monitor the feeds for one day, they made numerous arrests and stopped violations in progress. That, he says, proves how effective the cameras could be if used proactively.
City Attorney Stephanie Nuttall has pushed back on the assertion that the site qualifies as a chronic nuisance property under Grants Pass Municipal Code 5.12.121. The code allows the police department to issue warnings after two nuisance reports and requires action after three. But, as Nuttall explained in her June 9, 2025, letter, the decision to issue the initial warning is discretionary. Without that first step, the process leading to a nuisance determination is never triggered.
Nuttall further emphasized that the city cannot regulate public property in the same way it can private land. She cited House Bill 3115, passed by the Oregon Legislature, and federal injunctions that limit the city’s ability to criminalize or displace homeless residents without providing alternatives. But Servant argues that this is a mischaracterization. There is nothing in HB 3115, he says, that prevents municipalities from enforcing their own nuisance property codes or from managing the very sites they choose to establish. The city’s position, he contends, is based purely on financial concerns. According to Servant, City Manager Aaron Cubic acknowledged as much during a recent council meeting, saying that if the city increased its management role it would obligate them to provide such services in perpetuity.
Servant remains unconvinced by assurances that the city is doing all it can. He has argued that the city’s own actions—establishing and maintaining the encampment in a city-owned parking lot—make it directly responsible for its impact on the community. He cites case precedent from Arizona where courts found municipalities were not immune from nuisance laws when they knowingly created conditions that harmed neighbors. “The city is not just permitting the property to become a nuisance,” he wrote. “They are actively creating one by failing to manage it.”
He also points to what he sees as hypocrisy in the city’s approach. During a recent council workshop, the city discussed new criteria for future homeless service grants that will require applicants to comply with all zoning, planning, and fire codes, ensure 24-hour management, and demonstrate minimal community impact. “None of those safeguards are being applied to the current camps,” Servant argued. “Clearly the city understands the nature of the problem and are setting up safeguards going forward. Why are those safeguards not in place now?”
The sanctioned camps themselves were hastily established in response to the Disability Rights Oregon injunction, which temporarily limited the city’s ability to enforce anti-camping ordinances. Though the injunction has since been lifted, the city continues to use the pretext of emergency to skirt its own nuisance property codes. While officials describe the camps as “temporary,” Servant argues that more than 13 months of operation cannot reasonably be called temporary. Based on the current timeline, the sites will remain in place until at least June 2026, and there has been no public discussion of what the plan will be if the request for proposals to find an outside manager fails to attract a qualified applicant.
The broader context is significant. Grants Pass has become a national test case in the homelessness debate, with the U.S. Supreme Court hearing arguments this year in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. That case could decide whether cities may enforce camping bans when sufficient shelter beds are not available. In the meantime, the city council has struggled to balance legal obligations with community pressures, creating a patchwork of short-term fixes and long-term uncertainty.
For neighbors, the frustration is not only about safety and quality of life but also about what they see as unequal treatment. Private property owners who allow repeated nuisance behavior face stiff penalties and can be forced to close. When the city itself is the landlord, however, the rules appear to shift. To Servant, that raises a troubling question: if the city can declare itself immune from its own nuisance codes, what other ordinances might it ignore? Against the backdrop of what critics describe as a culture of corruption in Josephine County politics—and the fiasco of a cancelled grant process tainted by alleged ex parte communication between the mayor and council members—such questions have taken on new urgency.
Chief Hensman has pledged to work with staff to streamline reporting and increase camera monitoring, and residents have noticed an uptick in police presence. But Servant argues the problems remain systemic. The correspondence shows that he intends to continue pressing the issue with city officials, the Oregon Attorney General, and through legal channels if necessary.
The standoff illustrates a deeper dilemma. Can a city both comply with state and federal mandates to provide space for unhoused residents and still enforce its nuisance ordinances fairly? Servant insists the answer lies in active management and accountability, not legal loopholes. City officials counter that their hands are tied by legal constraints and limited resources. What is clear is that without decisive action, the sanctioned camps will remain a source of disruption, legal wrangling, and community division for the foreseeable future.